Long-term outcomes of sandwich ventral hernia repair paired with hybrid vacuum-assisted closure

Hicks, Caitlin W.; Poruk, Katherine E.; Baltodano, Pablo A.; Soares, Kevin C.; Azoury, Saïd C.; Cooney, Carisa M.; Cornell, Peter; Eckhäuser, Frederic E.

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.04.072

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hicks et al ( 17 ) performed standard anterior component separation in 60 patients. “The hernia sac was entered, and the abdominal wall was separated from the underlying viscera” ( 17 ). “The hernia sac was excised back to the edge of normal fascia” ( 17 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…“The hernia sac was entered, and the abdominal wall was separated from the underlying viscera” ( 17 ). “The hernia sac was excised back to the edge of normal fascia” ( 17 ). A Surgimend™ biologic mesh underlay, made from acellular dermal matrix, extending 4 cm circumferentially beyond the facial edge of the defect was then sutured in place using interrupted 1 Prolene sutures.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Treatment of Large Incisional Hernias in Sandwich Technique - A Review of the Literature

Köckerling

Scheuerlein²,

Schug-Paß

2018

Front. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn a systematic review of the surgical treatment of large incisional hernia sublay repair, the sandwich technique and aponeuroplasty with intraperitoneal mesh displayed the best results. In this systematic review only the sandwich technique, which used the hernia sac as an extension of the posterior and anterior rectus sheath and placement of a non-absorbable mesh in the sublay position, was included. Other modifications of the sandwich technique are published in the literature and were also analyzed in this literature review.MethodsA systematic search of the available literature was performed in November 2017 using Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library using the terms “sandwich technique”, “double prosthetic repair”, “double mesh intraperitoneal repair”, and “component separation technique with double mesh”. This review is based on 24 relevant publications. Unfortunately, the evidence of the available studies is not very high since only prospective and retrospective case series have been published. There are no comparative studies at all. Therefore, the findings of the published case series must be viewed in a critical light.ResultsThe published studies report a remarkably low recurrence rate of 0-13% with a follow-up of 1–7 years. One limitation that must be mentioned here is that in around half of the studies the method of follow-up was not specified and in the remaining cases this was based on clinical examination by the surgical team. This puts into perspective the reported results, which appear to be too favorable given the complex nature of the hernias involved.The major disadvantage of the sandwich technique is a very high rate of wound complications of up to 68%, mainly induced by creation of large skin and subcutaneous cellular tissue flaps.ConclusionIt is difficult to evaluate the significance of the various modifications of the “sandwich technique” based on the available literature since it includes only case series and no comparative studies. The techniques used are associated with very high wound complication rates but with only relatively low recurrence rates despite the complexity of the cases involved. This must be verified in studies with a well-designed methodology.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Large Incisional Hernias in Sandwich Technique - A Review of the Literature

Köckerling

Scheuerlein²,

Schug-Paß

2018

Front. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 23 studies using biological mesh for reinforcement, all reported only elective patients undergoing repair of incisional hernia. The degree of contamination in all studies was clean‐contaminated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The degree of contamination in all studies was clean‐contaminated. Mesh placement was reported as intraperitoneal in five studies , , , extraperitoneal in seven , , , and a combination in ten studies , , , , . One study did not report the location of mesh placement.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The degree of contamination in all studies was clean-contaminated. Mesh placement was reported as intraperitoneal in five studies 34,35,42,44,46 , extraperitoneal in seven 30,32,33,37,40,48,50 and a combination in ten studies 29,31,36,38,39,41,43,45,47,49 . One study 28 26 2015 Greece Prophylaxis Bovine pericardium 36 Maggiori et al 24 2015 France Prophylaxis Strattice™ 17 Ueno et al 29 2004 USA Reinforcement Surgisis ® 16 Limpert et al 37 2009 USA Reinforcement Bovine pericardium 22 Hsu et al 35 2009 USA Reinforcement Permacol™ 16 Chavarriaga et al 32 2010 USA Reinforcement Permacol™ 7 Cox et al 48 2010 USA Reinforcement Surgisis ® 10 Shah et al 45 2011 elective and emergency operations.…”

Section: Ideal Stage Of Innovation and Grade Quality Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAchieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterize the stage of innovation for biological mesh devices used during complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence.MethodsA systematic review was performed of published and ongoing studies between January 2000 and September 2017. Eligible studies were those where a biological mesh was used to support fascial closure, either prophylactically after midline laparotomy, or for reinforcement after repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the GRADE criteria for study quality.ResultsThirty‐five studies including 2681 patients were included. Four studies considered mesh prophylaxis, 23 considered hernia repair, and eight reported on both. There was one published randomized trial (IDEAL stage 3), none of which was of high quality; the others were non‐randomized studies (IDEAL stage 2a). A detailed description of surgical technique was provided in most studies (27 of 35); however, no study reported outcomes according to the European Hernia Society consensus statement and only two described quality control of surgical technique during the study. From 21 ongoing randomized trials and observational studies, 11 considered repair of incisional hernia and 10 considered prophylaxis (seven in elective settings).ConclusionThe evidence base for biological mesh is limited, and better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although results of ongoing trials over the next decade will improve the evidence base, further study is required in the emergency and contaminated settings.

show abstract

S116: Impact of incisional negative pressure wound therapy on surgical site infection after complex incisional hernia repair: a retrospective matched cohort study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term outcomes of sandwich ventral hernia repair paired with hybrid vacuum-assisted closure

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

Treatment of Large Incisional Hernias in Sandwich Technique - A Review of the Literature

Treatment of Large Incisional Hernias in Sandwich Technique - A Review of the Literature

Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure

S116: Impact of incisional negative pressure wound therapy on surgical site infection after complex incisional hernia repair: a retrospective matched cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About